Posted on 09/12/2004 10:18:12 PM PDT by ambrose
USA Today acknowledges that it indepedently received the documents
Isn't it strange that the only typed memos (even though Killian didn't type) by Killian were about George W. Bush? If Killian typed all these copious notes about Bush, wouldn't there also be a MYRIAD of other memos that he typed up? OK, so where are they so the typing can be compared?
At worse, it's a wash for both candidates.
That's why Dan Rather is so confident about the documents authenticity.
Unfortunately for them, neither one of them or their ferns have a clue as to how the military communicates but they do have great faith in their own genius.
Seems that the Glob and USAToday were duped too--or was it intentional? Enquiring minds want to know!
By DNC standards "Operation fortunate son" is a success regardless of being exposed as forgeries beause the media have been SUCKERS and are STILL reporting the story.
EVEN FOX.
They are not discussing the new Swiftvets ad about kerry in his own words saying he threw 8-9 medals. Not ribbons.
we have already debunked teh next phase of "fortunate son" here on FR but the news outlets are 24hours behind the information curve.
Burkett claimed in '99 I think that he stumbled on a session of Bush's guard record(in Austin???) being scrubbed of negative stuff & that he noticed Bush ANG docs sticking out of a trashcan. Don't forget he hates Bush, the TX Guard & America itself(from his posted rantings).
Another thread said Burkett was ARMY Guard, not Air Guard. This poster said he would've had no access to AIR Guard records(real, not forged).
What was Burkett's access to ANY Guard records, is my ? Unless it was to check his own records for the lawsuits he brought against the TX Guard?
Burkett is Looney Left and filled with rage.
Makes a perfect Democrat.
See #128
Mail Fraud.
I know most folks, including myself, are fully convinced the documents are fake, but the 24 June 1973 memo offers more proof.
1. The forger forgot to put "Houston, Texas 77034" in the centered header (LOL)!
2. The superscripted "th" shows up in the header.
3. The superscripted "th", being a smaller font, takes up less space than the normal "th" seen on prior headers. Because of this, the line is a bit shorter, so it is centered differently. Fire up Microsoft Word and you will see that the centering of this document matches how Word does it.
BINGO! Where are other documents by Killian. Hmm. You mean that only these 4 documents from Killian's personal file made it 30 years plus. (Even though his wife and son have said that he never kept such files)
twn,
I firmly believe that based on what I have seen this year during the 9/11 hearings, the good economic news being shouted down, the convention reviews and now this - that the media is nothing more than a wing of the DNC.
The only difference is, this year with rathergate, we now have actual proof how they are colluding. Not just simple bias, but how the media is colluding and taking the DNC talking points.
Anyone wondering if the "gang of 500" have their hands in the middle of this?
Gee, I wonder why the MSM have not opened themselves upto the public and discussed WHO the "gang of 500" are and how they are manipulating the news cycles/colluding with the kerry campaign.
Appears that the folks at the USA Today did not run with them after they received them; they probably new they were forgeries from the beginning.
I thought the Post Office Boc was legitmate based on other older memo released by Bush43 and not CBS? Has that changed since Friday?
I could be wrong. I thought it had been discussed that the military used physical addresses exclusively and did not use PO boxes.
Hard to keep things straight in the whirlwind of lies coming out of the TV.
So what in the hell does 'received the memos independently mean?
Were they flown in with no name attached?
Did they drop out of the sky?
Were they sent via snail mail...with NO RETURN address?
Who receieved them at USA TODAY?
What the HECK does received 'independently MEAN?
Is this an attempt to once again, PROTECT the source?
WHY?
If someone has something to say that can hurt a sitting US President, should not the NAME of that person or his or her organization be STATED?
What IS this crap ' independently received', anyway?
Sounds like a danny rather < squishy, evasive, circle the wagons >statement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.